Talk:Irish Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Initial messages

Cahnged: Irish Americans currently make up roughly 10% of all Americans. to Those who claim to be Irish Americans currently make up roughly 10% of all Americans.

Often those with a mixed heritage chose the identity of their nearest kith and kin. An individual might be 1/4 Irish and 3/4 other European extraction but chose the Irish identity. 80.255.219.52 12:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

definition of Irish-American? - does this mean Irish American is defined as having at least one grandparent born in Ireland? or is the definition that the 10% of US citizens who claim to be Irish Americans have one ancestor at some point in history born in Ireland? (MarkG)

Yes but the 10% is referrering to First Ancestry. That's 50% or more Irish. Any Irish ancestry claimed is higher than 10%.

As of 2006 some but not too many Americans have a grandparent born in Ireland. (Most of the immigration came over 130 years ago.) The Census ancestry question is not spelled out as to what it means; anyone can use any definition or identification they want. Thanks to Catholic schools, there has been a very heavy degree of intermarriage since 1920. Rjensen 11:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"There are more Irish people in New York City than in Dublin, Ireland." No there aren't. There may be some vast number of Irish-Americans, but there are not very many Irish people. Here's a fine (?) Irish-American newspaper that will explain how an Irish-American person can become an Irish one. But only until the end of 2005. http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=16052 Angusmclellan 20:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: the large number of Americans of both Irish and Italian descent: I don't think it has to do with any Mafia or IRA stigma as much as the fact that both groups are Catholic and both groups are very large in the Northeast USA.

scholarship explodes myths; encyclopedia should not hide facts

6/29/05 RJensen: we need a discussion about "racism" here. The so-called "racist" link one person objected to is to a major scholarly article that shows --among many other points--that Protestants were not hostile (or "racist") toward the Irish. To remove the link to a standard scholarly source (a leading professional history journal, no less) makes a travesty of an encyclopedia. The article (which I wrote) is thoroughly documented with the latest scholarship and has been reviewed by dozens of college professors (many of them Irish themselves).

Maybe some Irishmen believe in old myths; that is fine...but they should not try to keep the facts away from Encyclopedia users. Maybe they cannot handle the scholarly argument that they were not vicitimized in America (they were indeed victimized in the UK). If someone still believes that urban myth after reading http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm they might try finding some scholarship that supports their position and we can have a debate. (There is no such scholarship by the way!)

Better to let our readers find links to solid scholarship. I have removed links to sites that offer little on nothing of value to the user of an encyclopedia.

Richard Jensen (PhD and professor of history)

So let's say that there were no NINA signs, this in no way proves that the Irish were welcomed with open arms like you would have us believe. You have the nerve to say that Protestants didn't treat Irish Catholic immigrants as inferiors?? Sure they let the Irish do those dirty jobs that they wouldn't do, why wouldn't they? How do you conclude from this fact that they were treated as equals?

Barbarossa

You are a racist. The encyclopedia should not promote racism. You are a racist for trying so hard to put this in the encyclopedia and you are proof that racism still exists today towards Irish-Americans. preceding unsigned comment by User:64.109.253.204.

Racism against the Irish immigrants probably didn't exist in America to the same extent as it did in Britain, but it would be naive to say there was none. Prejudgice against strangers is unfortunately part of human nature and the remains of anti-Irishism in popular American culture can still be seen. As a regular visitor to the US, I still experience some prejudgice, most of which is not meant to be offensive. There is still this view held that Ireland is a backwards, uneducated island of self-subsistant farmer. I realise these attitudes arise from ignorance and the "green" tinted glasses of some Irish-Americans. In fact, my friends and I have got used to playing to these stereotypes and watching the reaction of our new American friends as we reveal our true backgrounds! (I for example have a PhD in chemistry and am from an urban area on the west-coast of Ireland).

Anon.

Paragraph 6 is offensive! States no proof of signs being hung but that academic paper states they found 2 instances in the NYT classifieds, If 2 classifieds were found, to believe not one single sign was hung on a window is ridiculous no I mean stupid and offensive. Not to argue with Jensen’s paper but you can site David Duke and many anti Holocaust papers so what’s your point. Also as common sense it happened in Canada but we were spared? Come on! To say it was maybe anti catholic not anti Irish, you want to split hairs. How about the cartoons of the day characterizing the Irish with monkey attributes? The caring concerned Protestants (sited in Jensen’s article) building factory’s for the Irish to work in and hiring Irish women as domestic help as some kind of proof against discrimination is way off. I want to go to the slavery section and see how your twisted mind glorifies that! I guess the Irish were lucky to be able to build the railroad with the Chinese and compete with the Negro’s for jobs. This section needs a big RED FLAG!!! In closing when this encyclopedia starts saying the Holocaust never happened and slavery helped the blacks that is when it looses all credibility not just most!

One paper is not scholarship!! You stupid ignorant fools!!

• • The paper involved appeared in the leading scholarly journal after dozens of specialists--mosty of them Irish--worked over it. If you're really interested you might read a few of the 50+ scholarly studies it cites, or look at the primary sources on the www to which it links. Fact is there were no signs in USA--just a song about the signs. Computerized searching allows anyone to look through tens of thousands of pages of help-wanted ads looking for "NINA" (and related terms). Do they exist? many in London and some in Canada, and a couple in USA. The odds of a jobseeker seeing a NINA ad were one in a million. That's rare. As for the mills, you might read some of the dozens of books that study the mills. Start with Hareven on Amoskeag. Cartoons sometimes ridiculed Irish--and indeed, Germans and Yankees and Southerners and blacks and Chinese -- mostly the cartoonists ridiculed presidents and governors and senators. (Proof: go to ebay and search for PUCK CARTOONS ) The Irish=monkeys was a London cartoonist, by the way. Did the Yankees build factories for the Irish & French-Canadians--yes they did. That does suggest they were willing to hire them. Rjensen 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not much in this article about Irish-American racism against the English, and support for terrorism in Northern Ireland and Britain for three decades. Irish America paid for bullets and bombs that killed thousands and injured tens of thousands - a fact quietly forgotten by America post-911. When innocent people were murdered on the streets of Belfast, Londonderry, London, Manchester and countless other places in the UK, many an "Irish-American" let out a hearty cheer and dropped their coins into Noraid's collection tins. War on terror my a**. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.246.110 (talk • contribs)

Don't be daft! Only a VERY small/miniscule section of the Irish community in the US gave funds to the IRA. Are we going to have a whole section about the KKK on the Protestant article? Superdude99 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Wah--Looper5920 01:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not confuse racism with xenophobia. Xenophobia is a fear of foriegn nationals; racism is hate toward a racial group such as blacks or asians. Most Irish-Americans who support/supported the efforts of revolutionaries in Northern Ireland are not RACIST toward the English. There's a difference between arbitrarily hating an ethnic group and being upset with a political situation. Whether you view Irish nationals as terrorists or revolutionaries is fairly subjective.

Assuming you were trying to say "nationalists" rather than "nationals", and assuming you were referring to the IRA as the original poster was.... well done for so neatly backing up their point, whoever you are. Sure, it's "subjective", but you could say the same thing about Al-Qaeda. Innocent people getting murdered to make a political point is terrorism, however worthy the point and whatever race or nationality the victims. And am I right in thinking you're suggesting anti-English sentiment is "merely" xenophobia, while anti-Irish equals racism?

Thanks for getting my argument completely backwards. I wasn't justifying anyone's sentiments about anything. First of all, I was saying that paranoia concerning Irish immigrants was xenophobia, not racism. The same goes for Irish who might arbitrarily malign British people. However, in the case of the IRA, I would say their anger has far less to do with the fact that British people are British, and far more to do with what the British nation has done to Ireland. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their methods, the only point I'm making is that it isn't racism, but more socio-political.

With regard to the funding of the PIRA I have no idea as to the number of America who carried out this activity. However I do know that enough money was donated by Americans to fund the PIRA's attacks on British civilians for decades. The objection I have is the belittling of this funding by some people posting. If we turn the issue around and take a hypothetical example would Americas think it not worthy of mentioning that for a small percentage of UK citizens were funding a hypothetical terrorist group conducting and armed campaign agaist US citizens? The PIRA is reponsible for the murder of thousands of people in Northan Ireland and on the UK mainland and I find it insulting that anyone thinks that funding the murder of this number of people is not worth mentioning. This begs the question when Americans were funding the PIRA did they know what they were paying for (i.e murder) or were they just duped by angents of the PIRA .Out of intrest if the former is true how were those people treated by wider American society?(81.159.56.4 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Revert war

I have requested that this page be protected to deal with the constant reverting between Lapsed Pacifist and 64.109.253.204. Deltabeignet 18:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

How many Irish Catholics/Protestant?

"More than 5% of all Americans are Irish Protestant, and a little less than 5% of all Americans are Irish Catholic.": says Andrew Greeley, the leading expert. (Encyclopedia of the Irish in America p1). Greeley is a famous sociologist and expert demographer (as well as being a priest and novelist.) I have added a comprehensive scholarly bibliography. Rjensen 02:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

A serious article needs a serious bibliography, which I have provided. The scholars themselves write on either the Catholics or the Protestants and so it should be divided that way for the convenience of the Wiki users. Rjensen 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination and Prejudice

The second paragraph, that hass been re-added, needs to be cited by a legt source within the next couple of days else it be reomoved. It has to be one of the worst POV i have yet to see, becides that i seriously doubt that any legit sociologist or irish history scholar would make such broad and subjective statements. Whiter then white, was is that supposed to mean, "discrimination and prejudice they encountered" yes their were portions of this ethnic group that did endure that that can not be said for all of them, espically in a way to say that they are denial of it, once agin, was is that supposed to mean. Basically in other words the paragraph is tripe. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish or Scots-Irish

This might start a revert war...but I changed "Scots-Irish" to "Scotch-Irish". In the United States (which this article is about), the latter term is more commonly used, including by people of "Scotch-Irish" descent themselves. Even a Google search gives 6,100,000 hits for "Scotch Irish" and only 382,000 hits for "Scots Irish".--JW1805 (Talk) 22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article says that Scots-Irish are such due to intermingling because of the proximity of Ulster and Scotland. Here's me thinking it was because of Scottish/Northern English settlements in Ulster giving rise to a class of people called Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots. Is this not the case? Enzedbrit 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Both, really. Yes, there were the plantations, but there was also a huge amount of migrant workers moving back and forth between Ulster and Scotland, even up to the mid 20th century. Bastun 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Scots don't like being called "Scotch". That's whisky. Millbanks 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Major Irish American communities break out

This section is getting a bit long and breaks up the page to much. Might be about the time where it gets cut out, turned into it's own page and what's on this page is a mention of Irish neighborhoods in the States, how they came to be with a link to the new page. Interested to hear thoughts.--Looper5920 05:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

excellent idea. It would then be possible to have historical material on those communities as well as suggested readings & photos. Rjensen 05:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "major" needs to be in the title though. Irish-American communities should be sufficient--Looper5920 06:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No Irish Need Apply/Irish Need Not Apply?

Upon close reading that paragraph regarding the supposedly fictitious bias against the Irish, I think it may have limited itself excessively to get the results it wanted. I own a sign I bought in New York saying "Irish Need Not Apply", and I believe that was the most common wording of the phrase as used by business. Now, I must say that I'm open to the fact that it could be true that no such prejudice existed, but I'd just like to mention that it is possible the study itself was too narrow and, therefore, flawed.

check the sign you bought. if it says in small print something like Boston Sign Company Sept 11 1915, then you have a fake. You can run all the variations and get the same results re want ads: near zero of them in US (you get them in England and canada though). Rjensen 03:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am from Ireland and have lived in Ireland for 90 percent of my life. A lot of my family moved to the USA between 1960 and 1980. They never told me about No Irish need apply, but my uncle who moved to England told me that in the 60s he seen signs saying, "no blacks, no dogs, no Irish".

Unfortunately your uncle was right. But it's a pleasant surprise that most Irish people enjoyed their time in England for all that, and contributed a very significant amount to that country, as they did to the USA. Incidentally, things were, and to some extent remain, quite fraught in Scotland in that respect. Not much cosy Celtic bonding there. Bill Tegner 09:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Richard Jensen, even though you don't believe no irish need apply signs were ever around, it's obvious that if you were hiring in that time, you would put up a "No Irish Need Apply" sign. 75.3.4.54 04:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I married into an Irish Catholic family and just last week was listening to an elderly uncle-in-law talk about the old days (1930s). Signs? no signs, only a song. Rjensen 04:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just daft to state "However, computerized searches through hundreds of thousands of pages of newspapers have so far turned up only one such newspaper ad," because you can't search most pre-1992 newspapers digitally. Furthermore, ads aren't usually included in digital storage. Further still, these NINA signs were placed in shop and factory windows, not in newspaper advertisements. I'm removing.

It's not daft it's true. Dozens of newspapers are online and the DO INCLUDE the ads. What NINA signs are we talking about here?? Better read the article. Rjensen 21:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're just going to discount the testimony of thousands of Irish-Americans because the handful of digitized online newspapers prior to the 1930s don't have these signs? Have you searched newspapers for "Nigger don't let the sun go down on you in this town" signs? You're not likely to find that sign in any newspapers, but the signs were common at one time in the south. So were the NINA signs. I'm reversing.

Testimony? There was no such testinomy, only remembrance of the song. Try this: name a place and date where such a sign supposedly existed. Rjensen 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You can find many oral histories where it is mentioned.

Too many in fact--look at the article: Senator Ted Kennedy remembers seeing them when he was growing up! Of course he remembers the song, not the signs. Ask people and see how vague the answer is regarding year and location. At the textile mills and railroads where most Irish worked we have actual payroll records; they show the Irish were hired and promoted. look at books by Hareven and Working for the Railroad. The Organization of Work in the Nineteenth Century ny Walter

Licht to see the detailed analysis. Rjensen 23:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I think Ted Kennedy and every other Irish-American is a better judge of what he or she saw than you. Second, mill work was low-paying, grueling work -- suitable of the Irish. Black people often work in mills in the South. Does that mean they weren't discriminated against. Do you understand your arrogance here, discounting other people's testimony? Here's an article that documents instances of Irish being discriminated against in the workforce: http://www.tenement.org/encyclopedia/nativism_discrim.htm#apply. I understand that you are the author of the "Myth of Victmization" article about NINA signs. However, this is a subject of some controversy among historians, and more than just your side of this issue needs to be presented here.

Teddy never saw the signs. Not a single peson his age (early 70s) has reported seeing one. As for low skilled manual labor, it was what about 75%-80% of the urban population did in every US city. Free Blacks were almost never hired in Southern mills (some slaves were used before 1865). As for testimony: it does not actually exist. Show us some testimony that appears reliable, please. The tenement.org article is pretty good and it certainly does not claim the signs existed. Did discrimination exist without the signs? That's a very interesting question that I try to examine in the article, so please comment on the evidence I use there. After 1870 or so I don't believe any historian claims evidence of large-scale significant job discrimination against the Irish. If it existed it was not big enough to show up in the census data on wages and jobs. Rjensen 01:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If Senator Kennedy or anyone else said they saw the signs, that should be good enough. How would job discrimination show up in census data? Plenty of Black people worked in mills after 1900. I would like to incorporate the data in the http://www.tenement.org/encyclopedia/nativism_discrim.htm#apply in this article.

Teddy (born 1932) was six years old when he left the US (his father was amabassador to Britain), making his analysis of American factory hiring practices very precocious indeed! On the other hand we know he spent a lot of time in bars (where NINA songs are still sung) Rjensen 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

I tagged the NINA section as being pov, thoigh it is more bised then POV. It is slanted towards the pov of of one usere, though that while he has written a research paper on, he basiclay uses it as noting more then a spring board disprove the idea and direct users to his research on the subject. The user has slo constantly reverted changes to his wording that would possibly de-pov the current stsement, including the remove of a pov tag that i placed, in perferencr of his pov/promotion of his research paper. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User rjensen (me!) cites a paper that was published in a scholarly journal after being reviewed by over a dozen scholars (most of them Irish. The paper is online and should be read. Two original sources (illustrations) are included. The statement discusses what happened 150 years ago and presents no POV one way or the other. Rjensen 07:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do, it's a call to tone down the promotion of your research in this article. And expect that every time you remove the tag, as long as the section continues to be biased, it will just be reincerted. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All right! If everybody has to fight about this article so be it! I wanted to creat a new discussion topic but either can't be done or not smart enough. Very real problems with this articale. I am one of those plastic irish, not born there, also both grand mamas german both granddads Irish and with the ethnic sensitivity this clearly demonstrates everybody knows flynn or murphy clearly f##$$#$ german (joke).If this article does not improve it should be deleted. It is offensive. Scots-Irish did much to contribute to the US but to follow that with a pergoretive(?) about Catholics is very offensive. this is not an article that would be in any traditional encylopedia. many people have contributed important input to the this. rjennsen needs to stop contributating to this resource. Why? because he uses his credentials like what he say's is how it was. why he argues with people who in general would be english or lit majors shows he is nothing more than a bullie! as a scientist he needs to work on peer review. Scientific metheod(?) are you afraid to talk to academics? i think so. I will admit that rjennson has contributed but he both has a slant and opinions he presents as fact. I barely made it thru HS but even I know self "siting" is just wrong! now he does state it was reviewed and published in a prestigious periodical. fine! don't site youreself you ass! site the people who you refer to! come on! But sad to say it is not just rj. this article is very very bad by any standard. some questions of fact are disputuble and others are just overly offensive!! Good Luck!!!

Solid Research or flippant self promotion?

Someone has complained that I cited my own scholarly article in the Journal of Social History--it is a well-known peer reviewed journal. The article was reviewed by about 20 specialists in ethnic and Irish-American history. Citing it follows the Wiki Guidelines:[1]

If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

The article is online and has links to many original sources dealing with 19th century Irish American history.. I hope people find it useful. If they find it provocative--well, the Irish have long been known for being provocative. [Incidentally: I am not Irish but I attended Irish Catholic schools, and married into an Irish Catholic family.] Rjensen 06:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you simply want your essay cited as a source of information, add it to the links at the bottom of the article. Wikipedia is not a place to espouse your particular controversial views, they are a place for general information. Your section is out of place unless it presents both for and against arguments about the subject of discrimination against Irish-Americans. Xombie 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The section does explain the social condition of the Irish-- there are other articles on the Know Nothings, Orange, APA, ant-RC, etc that explore their opponents. Are the Irish controversial? well yes indeed they are. That's not a good reason for deleting the whole article. Rjensen 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article so that your research was mentioned. However, there is no good reason to give undue weight to your personal research unless you are of some particular prominence. -- Xombie 23:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

the article in question is the most thorough coverage of the topic. It has not been called into question in the history journals. How much prominence would you like? (try this: for 10 years I have been coeditor of H-ETHNIC, the main discussion group among 1500 scholars for the study of ethnicity and immigration. See http://www.h-net.org/~ethnic/ Rjensen 23:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is thorough. You do not get carte blanche to write whatever you want just because you wrote somewhere else about it. Read the section of NPOV rules on "Undue weight". Your study does not have enough prominence to be granted such a large section of the article. When a subject is controversial, the views must be proportionally represented. Not to mention the NPOV problems of referencing one's self. -- Xombie 00:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Xombie says there are other views that ought to be represented. OK, he can add them--that's a better idea than removing scholarship he dislikes. Be sure to have high quality scholarly sources. Rjensen 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If your edits do not conform to NPOV, they will be recognized as such and edited. -- Xombie 03:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How do Irish Catholics vote?

We have exit polls for Irish Catholic voters in Presidential elections, in large states. See George Martin, The American Catholic Voter (2004) for data. For example in 1980 Reagan (who won 51% of the national vote) won 53% among Irish-Catholics in New York state, 64% in California, and 65% in Texas. Kerry (who is Catholic) lost the Irish Catholic vote in 2004 to Bush (who is Methodist). I have seen only a few polls for state races, for example in 1998 when D'Amato (R) lost his senate seat in New York, D'Amato carried 66% of the Italian vote and 63% of the Irish Catholic vote. If someone has more polls for statewide races please share them. Also of value is Prendergast, William B. The Catholic Voter in American Politics: The Passing of the Democratic Monolith (1999), which has many pages on the Irish, and emphasizes that they are split 50-50, with the more religiously devout being more Republican. Rjensen 23:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

California, Texas? Those people weren't Irish Catholics. They might have had some Irish ancestry, but they weren't true Irish Catholics for the most part. You have no information on whether these polls were conducted to people 100% Irish or how many people. You also are talking about Texas, with a very small Irish Catholic population, which means most of the people polled were not actually Irish Catholic.

You are also talking about presidential elections which are different from local politics.

And why do you want to mention Ed Gillespie and not the so many more Irish that have been chairman of the DNC?

Get polls from Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore of people that are 100% Irish Catholic. Trust me, the Irish Catholics in Baltimore didn't split 50-50 when voting for Martin O'Malley.

Also many of the pro life leaders in the Democratic party are Irish Catholic. Why don't you want to mention that or any of this?

Get your klan shit out of wikipedia.75.3.4.54 04:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We have Anon here who denies the multiple exit polls and two sacholarly sources about presidential elections. Who would trust him-- he has NO SOURCES whatever for any city or state. He claims that many Irish in Boston vote Democratic. I'm sure they do, but somebody voted for four Republican governors in a row in that state (currently Romney). As for Ed Gillespie he's Irish Catholic from the Boston area who rose to GOP national chairman. (The Democratic counterpart is a Yankee from Vermont.) Rjensen 04:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For once i have to agree, if the anany want to proficde a source for his disagreement i have no problem, other wise i would discount his argument, since he seems to think that your not IC if your not a Dem or live in along the North Atlantic coast. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jensen, get your facts straight, Gillispie is no longer the Republican party chairman.

Also, are you stupid enough to believe that only 50% of Irish Catholics voted for Martin O'Malley? 75.3.4.54 05:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. IrishGuy 06:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I know Ed Gillespie and yes he is ex chairman. I'm smart enough to know that most Irish Catholics voted for Bush (twice). What are YOUR estimates of the Irish Catholic vote in recent presidential elections? Rjensen 05:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For once i have to agree, if the anany want to proficde a source for his disagreement i have no problem, other wise i would discount his argument, since he seems to think that your not IC if your not a Dem or live in along the North Atlantic coast. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the polls you want to include are biased. I don't need to get new polls from those areas I mentioned, if those areas were included into your poll, then that makes your poll unreliable.

Also, there are more elections than presidential elections. National politics is much different from local politics. If your poll only is about presidential elections, then it is unreliable.

You aren't smart enough to know that most Irish Catholics voted for Martin O'Malley? 75.3.4.54 05:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have poll number to back that claim up? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK...that is just ridiculous. Please....please...find me one reputable source that most Irish-Catholics voted for Martin O'Malley. IrishGuy 06:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, Ed Koch is a republican because he voted for George W. Bush. 75.3.4.54 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin O'Malley won about 90% of the vote in Baltimore--I agree everybody voted for him! Ed Koch is not really Irish, in my opinion. Fact is the Irish have been front and center on numerous issues, especially abortion, that moved the more religious among them toward Bush. I recall Irish Catholic bishops denouncing Kerry in 2004 re abortion. The polls show that the less "devout" Catholics (in terms of attending Mass) voted for Kerry and the more more devout voted for Bush, who carried a majority of the Catholic vote in 2004, running against a Catholic. (I have not seen the breakdowns for just the Irish, but given their highly visible presence inside the Catholic church I think the generalization applies as well to them.) Rjensen 07:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK...untrue. There were only a small handful of priests and a couple of bishops who denounced Kerry. And keep in mind, it was at the urging of a letter from a Protestant conservative sent to the Vatican. Did the Vatican denounce Kerry? No. IrishGuy 07:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

are you saying Irish Catholics voted for Kerry in 2004??? what percentage of them did so? 75% 65% 55% 51% ????? Rjensen 07:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Kerry was attacked by these Catholic bishops in election 2004--: Archbishop Raymond L Burke of St. Louis, MO; Archbishop John F. Donoghue Archbishop of Atlanta, GA; Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln NE; Bishop Henry Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, TX; Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Baker, OR; Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden, NJ; Bishop John M. Smith of Trenton, NJ; Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, CO; Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger of Evansville, IN; Bishop Robert J. Baker Bishop of Charleston, SC; Bishop Peter J. Jugis Bishop of Charlotte, NC; Bishop John Y. Yanta, Bishop of Amarillo, TX.

Rjensen 07:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

are you saying Irish Catholics voted for Kerry in 2004??? Did I say that? Some Catholics voted for Kerry, obviously. Kerry lost the Catholic vote. Please....pray tell...how was this tied in to the Vatican? Did the Vatican speak against Dukakis? You are wildly over simplifying and assuming that an entire group of people are swayed by one single political issue. IrishGuy 08:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vatican? no, not the reason. I suggest that Irish Catholics are splitting about 50-50 in presidential elections. Before 1968 there were 80-90% Democratic. So they used to give the Dems a big advantage but no more. Abortion plays a role for devout Catholics, but not for others. I think it is true that 8/10 of Irish Catholic politicians are still Democrats (we see that in Congress and mayoral elections--though the GOP did have the mayor 1993-2001 of Los Angeles, Richard Riorden). Rjensen 08:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Jensen, the poll you are promoting only includes presidential elections. It does not included local elections, which makes it unreliable. Saying Irish vote 50-50 is a false statement, because it is only data from presidential elections. The poll is unreliable, do not include it in the article because the poll did not include all elections and you have provided 0 information on whether they only polled 100% Irish Catholics who people who just claimed some Irish heritage. 75.3.4.54 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely there's a problem here. And it's a very simple one. "What is the definition of an Irish Catholic?". How on earth can you judge how "Irish Catholics" vote(d) without a clear definition? In Ireland you are asked your ethnicity (eg "White Irish", "White Irish Traveller", "White Other", etc) on the census form . Are you asked that in USA? And there's a question on religion, too (Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland, etc.). That makes quite straightforward to identify a (genuine) Irish Catholic and relatively easy to assess how Catholics vote. It seems fairly clear that the majority of Irish Catholics in the South voted for either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, and in the North for Sinn Fein (with the SDLP as second choice). Bill Tegner 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

voting 2004

Here's a summary of CNN exit polls by religion: (from a Republican source)American Spectator According to CNN's exit poll data, 27% of those who voted on Tuesday were Catholic, which equated to roughly 31 million of 115 million voters. How these Catholics voted is striking: They voted for Bush over Kerry by 51 to 48%. In other words, they mirrored the popular vote to the exact number.

Kerry lost the Catholic vote to Bush by at least a million. A Catholic with a major party nomination should have won the Catholic vote by several million. Another Democratic senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, once won an extremely close election because he overwhelmingly took the Catholic vote.

The numbers diverge more sharply when one considers devout Catholics compared to those who find their way to church only for weddings and Christmas. Catholics who attend Mass weekly voted for Bush by 55% to 44%.

The breakdown among states is most interesting. Bush remained close to Kerry in Pennsylvania, a state with millions of pro-life Catholic Democrats, which went for Kerry 52 to 48%, because he carried Catholics who go to Mass weekly by 52 to 48%. In New Hampshire, which barely went for Kerry, Bush took Catholics who attend Mass weekly by 63 to 35%.

Most impressive, Catholics played a key role in Florida and Ohio. In Florida, they comprised 28% of voters, and went for Bush 57 to 42%. In Ohio, they made up 26% and went to Bush 55 to 44%. The margin was even wider for Catholics who attend Mass weekly: In Florida, they went to Bush by almost two to one, 66 to 34%, and in Ohio they supported Bush by 65 to 35%.

...The Catholic vote kept Bush competitive in the liberal East, where the 41% of voters who are Catholic went for the Protestant president by 52 to 47%, and those who attend Mass weekly supported him by 56 to 42%. Bush actually won the Catholic vote in New York by 51 to 48%. Those Catholics were offset by the 12% of New Yorkers who claimed no religion at all; these atheists eagerly voted for Kerry by 78 to 19%. Kerry actually almost lost the Catholic vote in his own liberal home state of Massachusetts, where Catholics gave him the nod by a paltry 50 to 49%. Rjensen 07:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The presidental election is just one election. Your poll is proven unreliable because you don't how any numbers on other elections. Do not continue to put the poll in, and don't do it without stating all the facts, and not just the facts as you want them. 75.3.4.54 18:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Depending on a poll from one election to determine how a group of people have voted for 36 years is insane.75.3.4.54

Reliable

You think that one poll from one election of people from California and Texas that claim Irish heritage can determine how a group has voted in every election for 36 years? No one can seriously think that is a reliable source. 75.3.4.54 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Respond to this Boothy and Richard Jensen or don't try to put the poll back in ever again. 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a source, and so far it is mone more source then you have been able to provide. SO far the only thing you have been able to provide are rants and stsuations that have no bearing on anything, your rants on O'Mally are tripe and only go to show that you have not the slightest knowledge of politics of demographics in Baltimore. And btw I am Irish-Catholic, was rased Catholic and have a stong Irish background from both sides of the border, so your insults to me about being Anti-Irish is nothinf but that , and insult, I have done more then my fair share to keep irish articles on some kind of nutural footing. As i see it of all the people discussion here you seem that have the most aginst the Irish, with you extrrmely narrow deffinition of what one is, which is apparently not anyone who is in the Republican Party nor lives outside of the NE United States, If you are Irish American i would recomend that you might want to read up on the history of your fellow people and the immigration of them to the united states and see that they dont all live nor did the just migrate to Boston, NY, Phila, Baltimore, or Chicago. Granted i dont like how the section is worded, and think it could use a rewite to be better explained and it is vauge in its wording towards the source and the sunject matter, but a whole sale removal on something that does not push the extrems of POV, which this DOES NOT, is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated. SO why dont you drop you attitude, and try to come up with someting useful say or else i have no problem with to keep on ingnoring you. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Although it is a source, I have proven it is an unreliable one. Also, the statement "Since 1968 they split 50-50." is unsourced, it is put in there as the personal opinion of Richard Jensen. As I said many times, the poll Jensen refers to only has some election results and no information on whether the people polled were fully Irish or not. You cannot generalize that based only a few people polled in a few elections, and we have no information on if the people polled were actually Irish.

Sure, it is a source, but it is a bad source, and we should not accomodate bad sources. I am going to remove it again, and I hope you finally understand why and post on here that it doesn't belong. 75.3.4.54 03:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No You have yet to prove anything unreliable, come up with some real numbers, and not made up ones and then you can say that you have proved soething unrelaible. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't need any numbers. The poll Richard Jensen is promoting is the poll that doesn't have all the numbers. I don't want to put a poll on the page, Richard Jensen is trying to put in a poll and make claims based on it without enough information. 75.3.4.54 03:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So baiscalyy you canot provide anything to contrdict the current claims, nor back up the ones you make, now thats far less then what Jensen has done, while i dont entirly agree with all of his work, at leat he has done some work, your only thing is to remove information in which you object to, based upon, well nothing. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone has a source, doesn't mean we have to use it. I have pointed out where Richard Jensen's poll fails. You must just be ignoring it. We don't even know who was polled in Richard Jensen's poll, he hasn't provided that information. He is just making claims and using one election to base it on and with a poll of unknown people. We don't know if the people polled were male or female, we don't even know if they were black or white. 75.3.4.54 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a much better idea to just leave something out of an article is the only source is very unreliable. Why do you disagree? 75.3.4.54 04:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you havn't, the only thing that you have show is that the poll has the possibilty to fail, we guess what the same can be said of any poll useing the same conepts that you are using, so baislcy i guess we ought to give you an award becuse you have shown that a plol could be flawed, wow. So i guess now we ought to tak out all poll/and even census data, sicne that is a poll to, i guess then it's time to remove them as well, since they to are also unreliable. But yet you stil have yet to proved one source that would contradit this data, yet to provide and stats that would provied this data, and in the mean time you placed and uncoured and unverified claim into the txt that is going to have to be removed, basically it is the pot calling the kettle black. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but no, considering that you have yet to prove that the sours is unrliable other then the fact you dont like it becuse it doen't show the the Irish American are all dems. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason to provide data. I am asking this poll to present it's data. The thing is, this poll didn't record important data, making it unreliable. 75.3.4.54 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:So if you know this poll so well why dont you lay out the poll for us and show us exaclty where you dissagree. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

New Poll

If a new poll were to be conducted, and polled the same number of people as RJensen's poll, but this poll was for Irish Catholics that voted for Martin O'Malley. Let's say, 100% of the people polled say they voted for him. Then can we make the assertion that 100% of Irish Catholics vote Democratic in local elections? It would be the same exact situation that RJensen is presenting. 75.3.4.54 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardley. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it not? Richard Jensen is just using one poll from one election. Explain how it would not be the same situation. 75.3.4.54 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The poll should stay out of the article because I have proven it unreliable and no one can counter it. 75.3.4.54 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki depends on RELIABLE SOURCES. The poll data referenced has furthermore been studied in two reputable scholarly books, which analyzes it in detail. Every newspaper, journalist, politician and political analyst uses poll data. To reject poll data leaves us with no information at all on voters and makes Wiki look pretty stupid. Our anonymous critic has not read the books or cited ANY sources for his extreme claims. Rjensen 04:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A summary of the exit polls for every state is online at [2] (pick the state and race you want--these are interviews with voters who just left the voting booth). It shows that in Massachusetts Catholics split about 50-50 (49% for Bush and 51% for Kerry) This is the source used by all the media, politicians and scholars, and it is good enough for Wiki. Rjensen 05:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a horrible source. It didn't include all house races. Just the stuff the national media follows. 75.3.4.54 01:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The poll shows all the House races in the country. It is used by all media and politicians. No one who signed their real name has complained. I had a few bad students in my day, but none tried to cover their ignorance with anonymity. Come out and debate like a man or just slink away into the darkness. Rjensen 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not show all the house races. It just grouped all the Midwest house races into one poll. That is worthless. 75.3.4.54 03:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish in South

This section doesn't seem reliable. I have never in my time heard of Irish Catholics in the South being "widely excepted." To my knowledge, their ancestry and religion was indeed of importance in the South, and there are numerous recorded cases of violence in the South against the Irish even into the 20th Century. This section seems like it is derived from some obscure pro-South "historian" who is trying to paint the Irish in the 19th Century as slave drivers and the Southerners of the 19th century as friendly and excepting of the Irish. None of this is historically accurate. I understand that some people have an agenda against the Irish's history of discrimination. I understand that many would like to rewrite history to make it seem like the Irish were never discriminated against in America. I also understand that you people feel it is too "liberal" or "extreme" to say the Irish were ever discriminated against. You cannot wrap your minds around the idea. Or maybe you are ashamed of your past and wish to make the Irish the slave drivers instead of the Anglos. Whatever the case may be, it is historically inaccurate. Anyone who has any knowledge of Southern history would know Irish Catholics were not treated as fellow "good ol' boys" in the South. They were in most cases treated as drunkard Papist immigrants. I'm not saying there is no truth to the South section. I'm sure there was a very small group of Irish in the South that supported slavery and maybe were treated equal. But this group had to be very small, and the section in the article makes it seem as if all Irish in the South were instantly accepted by Southern society.

Yes it is solid history--Gleeson is well known as the leading historian of Irish in the South, and he is quoted directly. What other sources are there that contradict him? I have not seen any. Wiki's rule is that we use the best sources, and Gleeson certainly qualifies. Rjensen 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Gleeson on irish in South: details

Here are the main reviews--all favorable -- by scholars of Gleeson's book on Catholic Irish in South: (some of these are online:)

1. American Historical Review 2003 108(2): 519. Reviewer: Curran, Robert Emmett.
2. Catholic Historical Review 2003 89(2): 339. Reviewer: O'Toole, James M.
3. Journal of American Ethnic History 2002 22(1): 96-97. Reviewer: Emmons, David M.
4. Journal of American History 2003 90(1): 227-228. Reviewer: Meagher, Timothy J.
5. Journal of Southern History 2003 69(2): 415-416. Reviewer: Woods, James M.

Here's the full text of the H-Net review online at [3] review by Mark I. Greenberg , University of South Florida, Tampa. Published by: H-South (November, 2002) Scarlett O'Hara and the Blarney Stone For author David Gleeson, Gone with the Wind offers insight into Irish immigration to the nineteenth-century South. "The ease with which the public accepted the Irish immigrant and [Gerald O'Hara's] fictional family as 'true' southerners emphasizes just how well the Irish had blended into the native population," he notes in the book's final paragraph (p. 194). By the 1930s, the Irish had become the region's "forgotten" people. How Irish immigrants to the South went from outsiders to "forgotten" in a century forms a central theme in Gleeson's thought-provoking study, and it raises important issues in southern and immigrant/ethnic history. The white South's ethnic composition has received limited study, and immigrant/ethnic scholars have missed opportunities to address regional distinctiveness, he asserts. The Irish in the South seeks to bridge these two literatures by adding an ethnic dimension to southern history and a southern dimension to American ethnic history.

Contrasting the "forgotten" theme, Gleeson devotes considerable attention to Irish ethnic institutions and awareness. "It would not have been surprising if the Irish in the South, under pressure from a dominant Protestant majority, had jettisoned their diasporic baggage and sacrificed their Irishness for native acceptance. They did not, however, commit cultural suicide," he writes (p. 22). Instead, he notes countless examples of how the Irish exhibited a cultural heritage, used it to their advantage, diverged from contemporary ethnic stereotypes, and integrated into the non-Irish community. Like many ethnic studies, the book begins with a familiar discussion of "push/pull" factors and migration patterns. Many Irish immigrants that came south landed first in a northern port, read of economic opportunities in the press, and moved southward in search of work. Overwhelmingly an agrarian population in Ireland, the Irish in America eschewed rural life. Unfamiliar with a cash crop economy, lacking capital, and fearing physical isolation and continued destitution, they settled overwhelmingly in towns and cities. At most 2 percent of the Confederate states' white population, the Irish urban presence exceeded 20 percent in 1860 Savannah and over 14 percent in Charleston, Mobile, and New Orleans.

Seeking to give Irish workers agency in their economic lives and prove that they were "not victims of urbanization" (p. 37), Gleeson argues that Irish occupational status varied more widely than nineteenth-century observers revealed. "Despite an Irish presence in every sector of the urban workforce," he concedes "monotonous physical labor was the norm for the largest group of Irish workers" (p. 46). Premature mortality, yellow fever, and cholera placed great stress on almshouses. Crime, alcoholism, and violence further disrupted earning power and stable family life. Short discussions of an 1844 Memphis strike for a ten-hour day and unionism in New Orleans offer only slim support for the author's argument that the Irish were not "pliable victims of the southern economy" (p. 51). Largely missing from his discussions is slavery's impact on Irish economic life, patterns and methods of upward mobility over time or between generations, Irish labor networks, loan organizations, and other collaborative efforts. Residential clustering, marriage, social and benevolent organizations, militia companies, and political activism for Irish home rule support Gleeson's assertion that the Irish exhibited an ethnic identity in the South. Faith in God offered cultural stability as well. Ulster immigrants established Presbyterian churches and Catholics gave Roman Catholicism a distinctly Irish tinge. After slow institutional development in the early 1800s and opposition to the predominantly French clerical leadership of the Early National Period, Irish Catholics successfully appealed to Rome for new sees in Virginia and South Carolina. Charleston's Irish bishops, John England and his successor Patrick N. Lynch, argued for the compatibility of Catholicism and republicanism, supported slavery, and worked to limit anti-Catholic sentiment among the overwhelmingly Protestant population. Lay leadership, changes in religious belief and practices over time, what role the Church played in the secession crisis of the 1850s, relations between northern and southern dioceses over slavery and secession, and interaction between Irish Presbyterians and Catholics receive little attention in these pages. The Democratic Party actively courted Irish voters and played up Whigs' nativism, according to the author. The Irish responded by serving as the backbone of Democratic support in several southern towns. Though Irish immigrant politicians were relatively few in number, many more emigrants from the Emerald Isle organized on behalf of candidates and party policies. Returning to his theme of assimilation and acceptance, Gleeson contends that Irish immigrants' ability to sway close elections was "a major symbol of their integration into southern society" (p. 94).

Though Irish immigrants took the Know Nothing threat quite seriously, their acceptance into southern society faced little real challenge from the party, Gleeson asserts. Checking slavery's expansion and preserving the Union, more than nativism, drew southern supporters to the Democrats' chief political rival in the mid 1850s. Strongest in the cities where immigrants concentrated, the Know Nothings inflamed the population with their anti-Irish sentiment and elected mayors and council members in several cities. Tarred with an abolitionist label, the American Party's successes were short-lived, and by 1856 Irish voters had helped to oust its politicians everywhere except in New Orleans.

Irish interactions with slaves and free blacks and reactions to the secession crisis--covered in just twenty pages--form some of the most interesting but least developed material in the book. Irish immigrants' "white skin and their acceptance of slavery automatically elevated them from the bottom of southern society," Gleeson argues, and thus "they did not have to 'become white' but immediately exploited the advantages their race accorded them" (p. 121). Explicitly rejecting all "whiteness studies" for perceived weaknesses in the work of Noel Ignatiev and David Roediger, the author misses opportunities to address the complex relationship between race, class, and social status in the nineteenth-century South. He argues unpersuasively that acceptance came in part because native southerners "appreciated the economic value of Irish laborers" because "the Irish were willing to take on potentially high-mortality occupations, thereby sparing valuable slave property" (p. 193). In addressing how an overwhelmingly non-slaveholding Irish population went from solid Unionists in 1850 to secessionists by 1860, Gleeson offers several suggestions but limited depth. Seeking to show that Irish immigrants' integration into southern white society guided their political views on the crisis, he briefly mentions allegiance to the Democrats, proslavery sentiment, support for the "southern way of life," Church-demanded loyalty to existing institutions, and perceived similarities between Ireland's and the South's political positions. This last idea he explores in just one paragraph and references a single 1858 newspaper article.

Factors propelling the Irish to support secession moved them to "volunteer in droves" for Confederate military service, because they "believed in the southern cause" (p. 155). Forming ethnic companies, carousing in camp, and usually fighting with ferocity in battle, Irish soldiers also deserted in relatively larger numbers than native-born whites. On the home front, some Irish immigrants likened Union occupation of the South to British occupation of their native lands and sacrificed for the war effort. Others complained bitterly about new hardships and rioted for bread. When Union soldiers entered New Orleans in April 1862--just a year into the war--"many Irish New Orleanians were not too distressed" (p. 168). Slaves' emancipation and long-held fears of job competition drove angry Irish immigrants to violent repression of freedmen's newfound economic and political rights. With the key to their status abolished at war's end, thousands of Irish workers gave up on southern cities and left the region.

Just how "southern" Irish immigrants became remains unproven by book's end. Though Gleeson argues that the Irish "completed their integration into southern society" by 1877 (p. 173), he never defines the term and often uses "southern" interchangeably with "American" to describe the same actions and attitudes. What does it mean to be a southerner in 1815, 1850, the 1860s, or 1877? Is it more than support for slavery, states' rights, the Confederacy, and black codes? The author offers few if any regional comparisons of occupational structure, ethnic institutions, family life, residential patterns, and other topics regularly addressed by ethnic historians and found in the rich "southern distinctiveness" literature. These omissions prevent him from assessing whether "southerness" extended beyond conformity to pressing political issues.

Moreover, Gleeson provides weak analysis of the processes guiding immigrant acculturation and ethnic identity formation. Scholars such as Kathleen Conzen, Ewa Morawska, George Pozzetta, Rudolph Vecoli, and others have advanced sophisticated models that account for an uneven course influenced by stimuli internal and external to the immigrant community. To argue that Irish immigrants were "more southern and less Irish" (p. 186) in 1877 than 1815 overlooks a generation of scholarship and misses opportunities to explore how specific moments in time, such as a war, can affect identity and how a cessation of hostilities often relieves pressures on conformity. Rather than explaining how Irish immigrants had become "less Irish" in 1877, Gleeson could have offered insight into the shifting and multiple meanings of Irishness over time.

For Scarlett O'Hara and other southerners of Irish heritage, Old World and New World identities were not incompatible. In every generation, Americans of all backgrounds have held multiple, shifting identities. If by the 1930s the Irish became a forgotten people in the South, historians lost them. David Gleeson is to be commended for recognizing the important history and roles Irish immigrants played. Rjensen 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RJensen

How can we take Richard Jensen seriously when from time to time he does try to vandalize this article? Jensen removed a paragraph without any explanation. This isn't the first time he has done something like this. It is quite obvious that Richard Jensen has anti-Irish and anti-Catholic beliefs and it is shown through his attempts at vandalizing this article. 75.3.4.54 19:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well how can anyone take you seriously when you post a blaent lie. Matter of fact between the last of his edits and you edit, the only person that removed any txt was you, so your the one that was doing the vandalisng here. I mean it's so easy to see, [4], is laughable. Jensen added to what was already their creating an addational paragraph. If their is anyone that has an agenda here it you. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the diff i lised list more then what the offender removed, so for a more accurate diff is this one in which the user removed, the following,

"The Irish had many humorists of their own but were scathingly attacked in German American cartoons, especially those in Puck magazine from the 1870s to 1900. In addition"

This is the same txt that as added by jensen, [5], in which the above user accuses him of removing txt, which did not happen, in both the above statement and in the edit summary, "adding back in what RJensen took out for no explained reason". And then the user accused me of mistorting the truth, first in demanding an Apology, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABoothy443&diff=55197068&oldid=54270234], and then saing that i got it wrong, [6], the user then attempted to cover up his fase statement by removing my statement, [7], and then removing this section [8]. Other then that i think it is clear that this user can hardl be taken seriousl, not that i have anyway, and should basicaly be considered a vandal. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Boothy, the vandalism I have been referring to happened a while ago. You are only looking at a recent edit of Jensen's which is not what I meant by his vandalism. You continue to refer to that edit as what I meant is you lying. So yes, you are lying because you are claiming I am referring to an edit which I did not refer to. 75.3.15.49 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Boothy, please see this most recent edit by Jensen, [[9]] and then tell me he isn't guilty of vandalism. 75.3.15.49 17:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The allegation "Violence against Irish Catholics persisted for quite some time." is not sourced--let's have some evidence before making this allegation against people. When? Where? Sources? Rjensen 17:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia Nativist Riots (1844), San Francisco Vigilance Movement (1850 & 1851), Charlestown Convent burning (1834). Does a 15 year spread count as quite some time?? That is a proven 15, I am sure with enough time evidence could show it went well into the 20th century in parts of the country.

The convent burned in 1834. There do not seem to be any episodes post 1860. The Encylopedia of Irish in America does not list any after 1860. Rjensen 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Policemen and Firefighters?

Can the person who wrote the following sentence, or who knows what it means, rewrite it, or explain to me what it means, and why it's a good introduction to the section on popular culture? "Irish authors, songsters and actors made a major contribution to American popular culture, often portraying police officers and firefighters as being Irish-American." I'm not asking a trick question, I sincerely don't understand the connection between the two clauses. I was about to place the bit about policemen and firefighters elsewhere, but thought I should ask first. --Cultural Freedom talk 08:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Native American?

"between Irish and native American work teams competing for construction jobs" Can someone please clarify to whom native American refers. Are they talking about the Native American inhabitants who have lived in North America for the last few thousand years or does it simply refer to those people who were born in the United States of America.

1--Irish actors often portrayed Irish policeman. 2. the "native Americans" were people born in the US (not Indians). Rjensen 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Scots Irish

The so-called Scots-Irish weren't all that Scots-Irish at all. Recent research in Ireland has put the Scots-Irish element to about 33%, Anglo Irish (mixed English-Irish and Protestant) to about 33%, and old Gaelic Irish (who were Catholic) to about 33%. Almost all of the old Gaelic Irish adopted the local Christian religion on settlement in America, which was Protestant. So a lot of the Scots-Irish thing is myth and definitely overblown. Eagleston 11:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

History is about culture, tradition, religion and group identity, not the biology or DNA of distant ancestors. Rjensen 12:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, totally agree with you, but that is where some editors are trying to push the article. I am just helping to explode the myth. Eagleston 13:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Scotch-Irish inserts are over-done in the article, there is also a certain Pov element involved. It's far too high up the page. It's taking up far too much space and trying to ruin what should be a good article. Therefore I have removed the <disputed> tag. Eagleston 19:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Scots-Irish "inserts" are "over-done" in the article - especially considering the massive input they had in the USA. Also, you make a bold claim saying that the "old Gaelic Irish" were Catholic. Firstly, Gaelic is more of a culture - not a race. Secondly, most Protestants could be considered Gaelic at a certain period of time, as they spoke Gaelic.

You say that "Almost all of the old Gaelic Irish adopted the local Christian religion on settlement in America, which was Protestant"... who are these "old Gaelic Irish" settlers to which you are referring? FYI, a quarter of a million Scots-Irish people settled in North America in a period of roughly fifty years surrounding the mid-1700s. "Research in Ireland"..? Research of what exactly? Carried out where, and by whom? Research may suggest that the Scots-Irish make up a third of the population of Ireland, but that does not change the fact that most of the emigration to N. America pre-Great Famine was from Ulster, and Ulster-Scots.

By the way, I'd love to know how you could possibly determine scientifically who is and who isn't "old Irish Gaelic" in Ireland. As I said - its cultural, not racial. --Mal 10:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha, the Scots-Irish planters are for real man, but the old-Gaelic Irish are a figment of my imagination, such POV. The Scots-Irish thing is a big POV-push by Northern Irish Unionists to blow their flutes once again, a bit like the 12th July. I'll get the citation shortly. The number of Scots-Irish settlers in mid-1700s was about 75,000. BTW, the word Scots comes from the Latin word Scotti, which means Irish. The Gaelic culture once only existed in Ireland, then the Irish invaded what is now called Scotland. If you translate the word Scotland it means Land of the Irish. Eagleston 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like there is a dispute over the Scots Irish part of the article. Hmm... maybe that's why a <disputed> tag was put there! No need to remove it until the dispute is over!! ~ clearthought 20:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cafzal, clearthought, did you firstly put in the <dispute> tag. I am only guessing, from the recent reverts, that it concerns paragraph 2 and 3. Maybe you could explain here what the problems are with those paragraphs. Eagleston 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been a dispute between an IP address and others regarding the removal of information from the article. Check the history of the page and you will see. ~ clearthought 21:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[Irish], [English], just added these 2 links for the USA census 2000. Does it help? If I am not mistaken, the official number of Irish-Americans is larger than the number of English-Americans. Please correct me if I am wrong. Eagleston 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed some stuff, which seems to be just unsourced opinion. Also, it makes the second paragraph too long for reader comfort. Eagleston 22:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed "...; very few became farmers" from the section "Sense of Heritage" for a few reasons; it is unsupported by a reference, it is largely irrelevant, and it fails to take into account the Irish emmigres arriving prior to 1844-45. Quite minor Vulvabogwadins 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a well known fact amd it's important because the Irish had been farmers in Ireland. I'll supply the citation. Rjensen 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

there already was a fairly large irish catholic population since colonial times in the united states

All the Presidents' Men

Hello all. I've added a list of the 16 Presidents of definite Irish ancestry. I was surprised to see this wasn't included before, but hey. I was tempted to mention that Reagan would have been the second Roman Catholic president (his father was Catholic) but thought this would just have sounded unnecessarily partisan. Of the 20th century presidents he, after Kennedy of course, took most pride in his Irish origins. Let me know if you think it's interesting enough to include this. He was raised in his mother's denomination instead. Best, Iamlondon 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan was not Catholic, although his father and brother were. He was raised in his mother's evangelical Protestant faith (Disciples of Christ) and was Presbyterian later in life.216.194.3.125 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling that Reagan needed a genealogist to help him find that he had a great grandfather from Ireland, and then used it as a vote winner: "I am Irish". So perhaps that pride came to him late in life. I wonder where his other forebears came from and why he wasn't quite so proud of their origins. Bill Tegner 14:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The list contains too many people who did not claim any Irish connections. It is based on one person's hypothetical genealogies not authorizes or approved by the families involved. It points to the larger problem of treating Irish as a biology category rather than a mater of self ID and family pride. 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether they 'claimed' Irish ancestry or not is irrelevant. Stop imposing your own bias on the article when 1.No POV has been expressed, 2.The fact of Irish ancestry is not disputed, 3.No exaggeration has been made. Unless you can prove to the contrary (that several of the 16 positively did NOT have Irish ancestry then you have no right to edit that list) Leave it alone - it's a standard list.Iamlondon 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If your only contribution to that list is to screw up the formatting and cut people out then just leave it alone.

Regarding Revert to Earlier List.

I was disappointed that the list of Presidents was cut back and then the commentary removed. The list is pretty standard material. If George W. Bush can comment on his pride at being of Irish descent then I would suppose it matters enough to him to be mentioned here. Furthermore, the list is not a piece of evidence for the Racial Purity Board of the Reich - it is as it says it is - Presidents of definite Irish descent, the extent of which varies. I've seen this list in a dozen places and hence see no reason to cut it.Iamlondon 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of Irish Presidents has a few highly controversial names (it is based on the theories of one person who invents genealogies that are not accepted by the families involved or by any other experts). The opening para clearly is about people who acknowledge their Irish ancestry. If we drop that definition we are left with very little to go on: MOST of the article is based on people's claims to being Irish. We do NOT have genealogies for most of them. So who's Irish?

Wrong - you've edited the list because the idea that so many Presidents could have been of Irish descent annoys you. As I've said, learn the difference between Definite and Definitive. The Bush family has never ever done anything other than affirm the claim that they too are of Irish extraction. Bill Clinton was positively proud of the association, Johnson's paternal ancestors through his father were Ealeys, Nixon had stacks of Irish ancestry. My job is not to write out family trees going back a thousand years just to prove to one editor that this list, QUOTED AND MENTIONED BY A THOUSAND OTHER SOURCES AND NEWS ARTICLES, is valid and standard. This is the absolute first time I've genuinely and utterly lost my rag with someone on Wiki. Leave the fucking list alone and stop behaving as though you own Wikipedia. You don't. It beggars belief that you don't accept that Bill Clinton of all people was of Irish descent. Iamlondon 11:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What is a "fucking list"? Bill Tegner 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had the pleasure or privilege of studying the genealogy of Irish Presidents, but I thought I'd read that Bill Clinton, for all his posturings, had not been able to establish any definite Irish ancestry. Can anyone enlighten me? Incidentally one Wikipedia entry says that Margaret Thatcher has Irish blood too. She certainly never mentioned it. Bill Tegner 09:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton ALL had very obvious Irish and Scots-Irish ancestry which has never been disputed. For the BUSH FAMILY - not only descended from one of the most famous Norman-Irish Catholic families of irish history (the De Clares) - are also descended from Demt McMurrough, an equally notorious Irish family. "The genetic line can also be traced to Dermot MacMurrough, the Gaelic king of Leinster reviled in history books as the man who sold Ireland for personal gain." (GUARDIAN , DUBLIN. Friday, Jan 28, 2005,Page 6). End of story.Iamlondon 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I dispute Clinton's Irish ancestry. I know he says he "feels more Irish every day", and "I look Irish, I feel Irish and by God I am Irish", but that doesn't make him Irish. Perhaps you can succeed where he failed and prove it. And then you can join him in a nice little pub somewhere in Ireland and be photographed enjoying a pint of Guinness with him in the village his ancestors came from. If he has time after that, he can go to the equivalent in the countries his other forebears came from. You could, for example, be photographed buying him a pint of Fuller's London Pride. When you've done that, you could do similar work on Jimmy Carter. As I've mentioned elsewhere, a Plastic Paddy from Chicago once referred to him as "an Englishman". He's not. He's American. Like Bill Clinton. Bill Tegner 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert - someone decided to edit the list to make a sectarian point regarding the religious affiliation of the Presidents. That is both irrelevant to the substance of this article and flagrantly sectarian. Please keep an eye on this to ensure it doesn't happen again. Thanks, Iamlondon 20:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

IRA

I recently removed the sentence in the "Sense of heritage" section of the article that alluded to Irish-Americans funding the PIRA. I don't believe this should be re-inserted without proper citations. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. For example, I have a vast family of cousins in New York who were deeply religious people (far moreso than us) and thus objected whole-heartedly to any fundraising for the PIRA. Suggestions of a "Sense of Heritage" merely present a subtle and erroneous vision of the Irish American experience.Iamlondon 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the information should be censored: a citation needed tag should be inserted instead. While I have always heard of NORAID's antics and of fund-raising, and certainly believe it to be true, I also believe that not all Irish-Americans purposely did this (a minority in all probability).

To that end, I think this sentence should be re-written, and some kind of citation should be included. --Mal 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not censorship of information so much as it is about making sure this information is correct, as it's a quite a bold statement to make without any sources to back it up. As such, if the passage is to remain in the article, I have inserted a tag that makes it quite obvious that the claim is disputed with direction to this discussion hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair enough to me. By the way, I didn't mean to imply strongly that you were actively involved in the censorship of information. I was referring to censorship in a general sense. The particular sentence has existed in this article for a while now I think, and I believe the correct way to go verifying the information is to highlight it with a tag.. as we have now both done. --Mal 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't say that we are transferring the bigotry of Northern Ireland to USA. That God-forsaken neck of the woods has a long ways to go, far as I hear they won't even sit in the same room. Why insist on putting in edits when there are no citations, the article should be too advanced for opinion. This article needs some NPOV editors. Eagleston 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're way out of order there. Your remark proves only your total ignorance concerning the reality of life in Northern Ireland combined with a cavalier disregard for the lives of those who live there, and who have lived through some horrendous days that the likes of you can only imagine in your worst of nightmares. I agree with the below poster that mudslinging is easily achieved. One might, for example, highlught the fact that over 60% of your prison population is black and that the majority of posthumous pardons following execution on Death Row have been black males. If a person wanted to question your right to label another country "God-forsaken" such a person might highlight the above, for example.Iamlondon 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well since we're passing judgement on other peoples' countries here, might I just say that your "God-forsaken" country has a long way to go before its crime rate reaches the comparitively low crime rate in my country. As I hear, they still attach people of certain ethnicity to the back of SUVs with rope and then drive off at speed for a few miles. You want bigotry..?

Looking for NPOV editors? Apparently that's not you, sir! --Mal 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this edit, as it is not representative of IA, and has no place in this concise WP article. Eagleston 23:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've readded the edits along with a citation, as well as rewording it slightly to make it clearer that not all Irish-Americans supported the IRA. Hopefully this will be satisfactory. To balance it out even more, you could talk about the support that people like Teddy Kennedy and Tip O'Neill gave to the embryonic peace process in the 1980s (don't have time to write this myself just now). Demiurge 08:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of the Irish American's that are aware of the Northern Ireland troubles I'd say that more than 75% are nationlist and republican (not compared to Democratic). But the vast majority of today's Irish youth has no knowledge of Belfast and the fighting. In my hometown of Reading, a suburb of Boston, pro-Irish slogons are evident on shops even though the town is a wealthy middle class town.

In contrast, where I live the vast majority of the Irish youth have at least some knowldge of Belfast and the fighting (hopefully now finished), though they don't seem that interested. But there are no pro-Irish slogans on shops, unless you count Super Valu's (correct) claim to be absolutely Irish. That could be because I live in Ireland Millbanks 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say "pro-Irish slogans", do you actually mean pro-republican..? --Mal 10:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pro-republican

Well, the ignorance of "Irish" Americans about Northern Ireland is legendary, but I can't see that the fact that "Reading....is a wealthy middle class town" makes any difference in that respect. As a matter of interest, what do the "pro-Irish slogans" in (?on) shops say? Bill Tegner 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that "terrorist" has been turned back into "paramilitary" again. Sorry, but the IRA *were* terrorists. The fact that they received a great deal of funding from sympathisers in the USA doesn't alter that, however unpalatable it may seem. 213.132.48.105 11:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish / Irish-American relations

should there be a section on attitudes in Ireland towards Irish-Americans, and the nature of the relationship between the two? Almost everyone from Ireland i've ever spoken to about it thinks its amusing when someone from boston or new york calls themself 'Irish'. Musungu jim 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A Dublin friend of mine has just returned from Boston, and he referred to the sort of thing you describe as "nauseating". Millbanks 09:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Irish Slavery ?

Why is there no mention on Wikipedia of the widespread use of Irish slaves in the Americas during the 17th century? It seems as if the atrocities against the Irish have been glossed over and forgotten, perhaps due to our affiliation with the British over the years?

This subject deserves mention somewhere, or perhaps on its own page. I am not a historian or particularly knowledgable but ask that people who are share their knowledge on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.240.130 (talk • contribs) (02:06, 25 October 2006)

Write one. Windyjarhead 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Write one. And I think you'll find that "atrocities" are still fondly cared for. Perhaps that is the real problem, 400 years is a long time ago. And a lot of people have moved around. Sometime we have to look at history as history. Not a current event to gripe at. --81.132.246.132 18:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish Presidents

This piece should be merged with the more accurately titled, "Presidents of Irish Descent". Just because a President of the USA has some Irish forebears it does not make him an Irish President. We already have our own President here in Ireland, and it's Mary McAleese, not George W Bush Millbanks 14:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting that George Bush and George W. Bush having Irish ancestory, I wrote that Jefferson Davis had Irish ancestory because he did no one should delete these things.

Hi. Please sign your posts...makes it easier to contact you. Yes, some person keeps doing this. I've asked that others keep an eye out for it as it's total nonsense so delete historical fact - the Bushs are descended from Dermot McMurrough, King of Leinster.Iamlondon 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This section states that ".....since Kennedy took office in 1961 every President bar one, Gerald Ford, has had Irish blood." Ford's original given name was Leslie Lynch King (he later changed it), and I wonder if his middle name, Lynch, doesn't indicate some possible Irish heritage. If anyone has an information to confirm or dismiss this possibility, I'd be curious to learn of it. Thanks very much.

What on earth does it matter whether Ford did or didn't have Irish blood? Would it make him a different person if he did? Or have I missed out on some abstruse ethnic (? racist) theorising?Bill Tegner 09:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, because King is also a very common Irish name (it can be English or Irish). Would be interesting to know if he too is Irish descent. With that middle name I'm almost certain there must be some linkIamlondon 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the point in the section on "Irish Presidents" including people like Geroge W. Bush? Surely it is irrelvent if they have some Irish ancestor somewhere back. I would suggest that a lot of this section is not notable. Logoistic 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the section you would have taken note of the fact that it makes a point of social history - it mentions that what is important is that from a particular point the Irish had reached a position in American society where presidents were incresingly likely to have Irish ancestry. Whether you consider it important or not that is a landmark in the Irish community's progress in American public life and is therefore very noteworthy. The Irish have always been proud of their successes in politics. QED the section is important and has been supported long enough for its inclusion. Thanks, Iamlondon 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be a spoiler, but I think I'm right in saying that Bill Clinton can't prove Irish descent, try though he may. Does "feeling more and more Irish every day" make him Irish American? Perhaps. I'm told that you don't have to have Irish ancestry to qualify, and in any event he was voted Irish American of the Year. As for Nixon, he managed to find an eighteenth century Irish Quaker called Milhous in the north of Ireland, and duly visited his grave, but I don't think even the Plastic Paddies were too impressed. Bill Tegner 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that Jimmy Carter's on the list. I heard him referred to by some "Irish" American from Chicago refer to him as "an Englishman" (!). And he went back to find his ancestral homwe in north east England. Bill Tegner 09:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why does the search for ethnicity always stop at "Irish". I'm willing to bet that 90% of Americans go right past English relatives in their family trees and ignore them and any other nationalities until they find one Irishman. Then they stop looking and declare themselves Irish. -- 86.17.211.191 10:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And here's the thing. If an American person claims Irish heritage and "Irish-American" status through finding say one antecedant a couple of generations or more back, they are missing a very big point: apart from most of the native population, there is not a single person living in America who does not have some heritage from several if not many places. You are a of course a "new" nation made up almost entirely of immigrants. If you have to go back a hundred years or three generations to find "Irish" you can bet your bottom dollar you've gone straight past some "English", "Scottish", "Welsh", "Italian", "German", "Russian" etc etc. But as has already been said, it seems the search for ethnicity is usually looking for just one thing, or stops when that one thing is the first one found. What does that say about Americans? 62.25.106.209 14:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Take Hillary Clinton. She is predominantly of English descent. But I'll bet you a cent to a euro she won't use this in her election campaign. Conversely, however, Tony Blair's mother was Irish, and so was the father of Jim Callagan, British Prime Minister 1976-1979. Neither of them ever made much mention of that. Now if they'd been American don't you think they would have done? Millbanks 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish and KKK

I've heard of linching of Irish and it was one of the groups that the KKK discrimigrated agains? If this is true why can I find it on wikipedia?

Yes, the KKK was always deeply anti-Irish - the Irish were overwhelmingly Catholic and the KKK overwhelmingly protestant and anglo-saxon/Scots.Iamlondon 22:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The KKK actually does accepts Irish and Catholics (Not all but most). --CSArebel-- November 14, 2006

Well, the modern KKK most likely. But I doubt the KKKs of yesteryear (i.e. the original and the 1920s revival did. Well, the 20s, maybe, the original, most definitely not.) --Saint-Paddy 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I think they encourage it nowaday's [10] Scroll twice! Nearly choked when I read it Billtheking 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

KKK will now take anyone in that is white, seems that you dont have to be an Aryan anymore, imagine even letting Poles and Paddies in, how times have changed!! but historically were very anti-Irish--Vintagekits 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, the Klan is so desperate for members that they'll let ANYONE join now. I know some Klan group in the South has an Italian leader, or something equally weird. It used to be completely different. My great-uncle was murdered (beaten & garroted) by the Klan in the 1930's and he wasn't a "Freedom Rider" or anything like that. He was just a businessman in Ohio and the Klan decided to get their kicks by lynching an Irish Catholic. My family came to the US in 1858, so they weren't targeting immigrants, either. Just random Irish-Americans. I'm still surprised that they have the gall to sell Tri-Colors on their website, though. They're like "Whoops, sorry 'bout that 150 years of murder and terror. My bad." Childe Roland of Gilead 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)